<i>Contemporary Accounting Research</i>: A Retrospective between 1984 and 2021 using Bibliometric Analysis*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study critically evaluates research published by Contemporary Accounting Research ( CAR ) between 1984 and 2021 using bibliometric analysis. We examine the following: (i) CAR 's publication quality and the factors associated with its citations and (ii) CAR 's scope regarding research diversity, methods, authors geographical dispersion, and collaborative networks. The methodology permits observation of finer collaboration details and research patterns not apparent by simply categorizing the data. We use tools such as performance analysis, coauthorship analysis, bibliographic coupling, and regression analysis. The bibliometric analysis shows improvement in CAR 's CiteScore and source‐normalized impact per paper over time, consistent with publishing high‐quality research. Our analysis reveals that authors' geographical affiliations, research subject areas, and research methods are not systematically associated with citations across our various subsamples. A notable exception is that research on audit topics generates more citations than studies examining financial accounting topics. Other factors significantly and positively associated with citations include article age, article length, number of authors, order of author names, and number of references. We also show that CAR has become more diverse regarding author affiliations, subject areas, and research methods than most leading accounting journals. Only Accounting, Organizations and Society emerges as more diverse, thereby serving as a benchmark for CAR in the future. CAR should consider focusing on high‐interest areas to boost citations and tightening its acceptance criteria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.055 | 0.093 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".